ReportWire

Tag: Wall Street

  • Bank of America tops estimates on better-than-expected bond trading, higher interest rates

    Bank of America tops estimates on better-than-expected bond trading, higher interest rates

    [ad_1]

    Bank Of America CEO Brian Moynihan is interviewed by Jack Otter during “Barron’s Roundtable” at Fox Business Network Studios on January 09, 2020 in New York City.

    John Lamparski | Getty Images

    Bank of America said Monday that quarterly profit and revenue topped expectations on better-than-expected fixed income trading and gains in interest income, thanks to choppy markets and rising rates

    Here’s what the company reported compared with what analysts were expecting, based on Refinitiv data:

    • Earnings per share: 81 cents vs. 77 cents expected
    • Revenue: $24.61 billion adjusted vs. $23.57 billion expected

    Bank of America said in a release that third-quarter profit fell 8% to $7.1 billion, or 81 cents a share, as the company booked a $898 million provision for credit losses in the quarter. Revenue net of interest expense jumped to $24.61 billion, on a non-GAAP basis.

    Shares of the bank rose 6.1%.

    Bank of America, led by CEO Brian Moynihan, was supposed to be one of the main beneficiaries of the Federal Reserve’s rate-boosting campaign. That is playing out, as lenders including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo are producing more revenue as rates rise, allowing them to generate more profit from their core activities of taking in deposits and making loans.

    “Our U.S. consumer clients remained resilient with strong, although slower growing, spending levels and still maintained elevated deposit amounts,” Moynihan said in the release. “Across the bank, we grew loans by 12% over the last year as we delivered the financial resources to support our clients.”

    Net interest income at the bank jumped 24% to $13.87 billion in the quarter, topping the $13.6 billion StreetAccount estimate, thanks to higher rates in the quarter and an expanding book of loans.

    Net interest margin, a key profitability metric for bank investors, widened to 2.06% from 1.86% in the second quarter of this year, edging out analysts’ estimate of 2.00%.

    Fixed income trading revenue surged 27% from a year earlier to $2.6 billion, handily exceeding the $2.24 billion estimate. That more than offset equities revenue that dropped 4% to $1.5 billion, below the $1.61 billion estimate.

    Like its Wall Street rivals, investment banking revenue posted a steep decline, falling about 46% to $1.2 billion, slightly exceeding the $1.13 billion estimate.

    Of note, the bank’s evolving provision for credit losses showed the company was beginning to factor in a more harsh economic outlook.

    While Bank of America released $1.1 billion in reserves in the year-earlier period, in the third quarter the firm had to build reserves by $378 million. That, in addition to a 12% increase in net charge-offs for bad loans to $520 million in the quarter, accounted for the $898 million provision.

    Analysts have said that they want to see bank executives factor in the possibility of an impending recession before investors return to the beaten-down sector. Bank of America shares hit a new 52-week low last week and have fallen 29% this year through Friday, worse than the 26% decline of the KBW Bank Index.

    Last week, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo topped expectations for third-quarter profit and revenue by generating better-than-expected interest income. Citigroup also beat analysts’ estimates, and Morgan Stanley missed as choppy markets took a toll on its investment management business.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The bond market is crumbling. That’s bad for Wall Street and Main Street | CNN Business

    The bond market is crumbling. That’s bad for Wall Street and Main Street | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business’ Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber? You can sign up right here. You can listen to an audio version of the newsletter by clicking the same link.


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    The global bond market is having a historically awful year.

    The yield on the 10-year US Treasury bond, a proxy for borrowing costs, briefly moved above 4% on Wednesday for the first time in 12 years. That’s a bad omen for Wall Street and Main Street.

    What’s happening: This hasn’t been a pretty year for US stocks. All three major indexes are in a bear market, down more than 20% from recent highs, and analysts predict more pain ahead. When things are this bad, investors seek safety in Treasury bonds, which have low returns but are also considered low-risk (As loans to the US government, Treasury notes are seen as a safe bet since there is little risk they won’t be paid back).

    But in 2022’s topsy-turvy economy, even that safe haven has become somewhat treacherous.

    Bond returns, or yields, rise as their prices fall. Under normal market conditions, a rising yield should mean that there’s less demand for bonds because investors would rather put their money into higher-risk (and higher-reward) stocks.

    Instead markets are plummeting, and investors are flocking out of risky stocks, but yields are going up. What gives?

    Blame the Fed. Persistent inflation has led the Federal Reserve to fight back by aggressively hiking interest rates, and as a result the yields on US Treasury bonds have soared.

    Economic turmoil in the United Kingdom and European Union has also caused the value of both the British pound and the euro to fall dramatically when compared to the US dollar. Dollar strength typically coincides with higher bond rates as well.

    So while we’d normally see a rising 10-year yield as a signal that US investors have a rosy economic outlook, that isn’t the case this time. Gloomy investors are predicting more interest rate hikes and a higher chance of recession.

    What it means: Portfolios are aching. Vanguard’s $514.5 billion Total Bond Market Index, the largest US bond fund, is down more than 15% so far this year. That puts it on track for its worst year since it was created in 1986. The iShares 20+ Year Treasury bond fund

    (TLT)
    (TLT) is down nearly 30% for the year.

    Stock investors are also nervously eyeing Treasuries. High yields make it more expensive for companies to borrow money, and that extra cost could lower earnings expectations. Companies with significant debt levels may not be able to afford higher financing costs at all.

    Main Street doesn’t get a break, either. An elevated 10-year Treasury return means more expensive loans on cars, credit cards and even student debt. It also means higher mortgage rates: The spike has already helped push the average rate for a 30-year mortgage above 6% for the first time since 2008.

    Going deeper: Still, investors are more nervous about the immediate future than the longer term. That’s spurred an inverted yield curve – when interest rates on short-term bonds move higher than those on long-term bonds. The inverted yield curve is a particularly ominous warning sign that has correctly predicted almost every recession over the past 60 years.

    The curve first inverted in April, and then again this summer. The two-year treasury yield has soared in the last week, and now hovers above 4.3%, deepening that gap.

    On Monday, a team at BNP Paribas predicted that the inverted gap between the two-year and 10-year Treasury yields could grow to its largest level since the early 1980s. Those years were marked by sticky inflation, interest rates near 20% and a very deep recession.

    What’s next: The bond market may face fresh volatility on Friday with the release of the Federal Reserve’s favored inflation measure, the Personal Consumption Expenditure Price Index for August. If the report comes in above expectations, expect bond yields to move even higher.

    The Bank of England held an emergency intervention to maintain economic stability in the UK on Wednesday. The central bank said it would buy long-dated UK government bonds “on whatever scale is necessary” to prevent a market crash.

    Investors around the globe have been dumping the British pound and UK bonds since the government on Friday unveiled a huge package of tax cuts, spending and increased borrowing aimed at getting the economy moving and protecting households and businesses from sky-high energy bills this winter, reports my colleague Mark Thompson.

    Markets fear the plan will drive up already persistent inflation, forcing the Bank of England to push interest rates as high as 6% next spring, from 2.25% at present. Mortgage markets have been in turmoil all week as lenders have struggled to price their loans. Hundreds of products have been withdrawn.

    “This repricing [of UK assets] has become more significant in the past day — and it is particularly affecting long-dated UK government debt,” the central bank said in its statement.

    “Were dysfunction in this market to continue or worsen, there would be a material risk to UK financial stability. This would lead to an unwarranted tightening of financing conditions and a reduction of the flow of credit to the real economy.”

    Many final salary, or defined-benefit, pension funds were particularly exposed to the dramatic sell-off in longer dated UK government bonds.

    “They would have been wiped out,” said Kerrin Rosenberg, UK chief executive of Cardano Investment.

    The central bank said it would buy long-dated UK government bonds until October 14.

    Steep drops in bond prices may be signaling doom and gloom for the economy, but some analysts say short-term bonds are still looking more attractive than equities right now.

    “Record low yields have kept fixed income in the shadow of equities for decades,” said analysts at BNY Mellon Wealth Management in a research note. “But the aggressive shift in Fed policy is beginning to change this.”

    Central banks around the globe have responded to elevated inflation by hiking interest rates– and bond yields have increased alongside them. The two-year US Treasury bond is currently yielding nearly 4%. That’s still a relatively low return, but better than the S&P 500’s dividend yield of around 1.7%.

    “For the first time in several years, bonds are attractive investment options. In addition to providing diversification versus equities…you now get paid for owning them,” wrote Barry Ritholtz of Ritholtz Wealth Management on Wednesday.

    Consider the alternative: the S&P is down more than 20% year to date.

    The US Bureau of Economic Analysis releases its third estimate for Q2 GDP and US weekly jobless claims.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who won the Musk-Twitter fight? Lawyers | CNN Business

    Who won the Musk-Twitter fight? Lawyers | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    This story is part of CNN Business’ Nightcap newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free, here.


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Well, well, well. Look who’s asking to buy Twitter for the exact same price he agreed to pay for it four months ago…

    In a major reversal just days before he was scheduled to give a deposition, Elon Musk offered to complete his acquisition of Twitter under the original terms of the deal both sides agreed to back in May.

    A Twitter spokesperson said in a statement to CNN that the company received Musk’s offer and reiterated its intention to close the deal for the original price of $54.20 per share, or $44 billion.

    It wasn’t clear when, or if, Twitter would accept the offer. The case could still go to trial.

    Twitter’s shares were halted twice on Tuesday, and jumped more than 20% when they resumed trading.

    Let’s step back: Even for a deal that has been defined by unexpected twists and turns, Tuesday’s development is a doozy. A settlement before trial isn’t unusual, but a settlement for the exact same price is.

    Should the deal move forward, it’d be a something of a pyrrhic victory for Twitter. The company will have succeeded in securing the best possible price for shareholders (good work if you can get it). But it would also be handing the car keys over to a mercurial billionaire who’s shown little understanding of how media companies work and whose history on the platform is that of an unfiltered troll.

    Musk would be the clear loser here, having to tap into billions of his own wealth to finance a deal for a company he no longer wants.

    The winners in all of this? The lawyers.

    Twitter sued Musk in July to try force him to complete the deal, setting off months of legal back forth between some of the nation’s most powerful white-shoe law firms.

    Twitter tapped Wachtell, Rosen, Lipton and Katz — an elite New York practice where partners earn about $8 million a year, according to Bloomberg. On Musk’s side is another Wall Street power firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

    The bill for both sides combined could easily reach the low- to mid- eight figures, said Peter Ladig, a Delaware lawyer with extensive experience in the court where the Musk-Twitter battle would take place. (“Eight figures” is just a mind-boggling way to phrase the concept of $10 million. Minimum.)

    “It appears that Twitter is throwing everything they have at this in terms of bodies, and that adds up quickly,” Ladig told me. “You’re talking probably 20 lawyers at least, I would guess. The amount of data is massive.”

    The timing of Musk’s latest pivot can’t be ignored. He was due to sit for a deposition starting Thursday, ahead of a trial scheduled for October 17.

    “That is often the leverage point,” Ladig said. “When it comes down to the CEO… being deposed, lots of cases settle on the eve of that deposition.”

    There’s a lot to unpack here, and my colleague Clare Duffy is all over it.

    For reasons no one really seems to understand, stocks rose sharply again Tuesday.

    The Dow has soared more than 1,500 points in the past two days, coming out of bear territory and rising up above the 30,000 milestone.

    “It almost feels like a panic rally. The market mood got way too sour and people started to jump in,” said Callie Cox, US investment analyst with eToro. “But this rally feels random. It’s great to see stocks go up but these moves are a little disorienting.”

    My colleague Paul R. La Monica has more.

    If you’d made the past few days at Credit Suisse into a movie, you might have opened with scene-setting shots of stock and bond traders looking pained, hands in their heads, neckties askew. There’d be scenes of frantic bankers spending all weekend on the phone with clients, assuring them everything is fine. A CEO would slowly sip a glass of Scotch, reading over a memo assuring employees the leadership is doing everything it can to avoid layoffs…

    As a connoisseur of the Wall Street-in-crisis genre, I would have been all in.

    But it looks like the real-life drama at the Swiss bank may not yield the cinematic crash we’ve come to expect in the shadow of the 2008 financial crisis.

    Here’s the thing: Speculation that Credit Suisse was about to collapse sparked a selloff on Monday, with the bank’s shares hitting a record low. It took no time at all for investors and commentators to start speculating about whether Credit Suisse was the new Lehman Brothers — the first big Wall Street domino to fall in the subprime mortgage crisis, almost exactly 14 years ago.

    That fear is understandable. When faced with a complex, scary problem, we tend to look to the past for solutions, hoping we can see now what we couldn’t see then.

    But, as my colleague Julia Horowitz writes, the hand-wringing over Credit Suisse says more about the market’s ~mood~ right now than it does about the bank’s financial position.

    Credit Suisse has been battered by years’ worth of scandals and fines. And there are still risks ahead. But it’s far from bankrupt. One analyst even described Credit Suisse’s liquidity position as “healthy.”

    That’s partly why, by Tuesday, the panic was subsiding. Credit Suisse shares bounced back, along with the broader stock market.

    “I do not think this is a ‘Lehman moment,’” said Mohamed El-Erian, an adviser to Allianz, on CNBC Monday.

    BIG PICTURE

    It’s not hard to see why investors would be triggered by Credit Suisse’s latest wobbling, triggered by a memo from the CEO that, rather than assuaging nerves, made people worry the bank was on even less solid footing than it seemed.

    Combine that anxiety with the related anxiety of a looming global recession and chaos in UK bond markets and you’ve got yourself a big ol’ anxiety smoothie.

    Everyone on Wall Street wants to get ahead of the next big risk, remembering that it doesn’t always come from where you’d expect. (Few saw the dangers in the subprime mortgage trade that predicated the implosion of the housing market in 2008, for example.)

    The devil is always in what you don’t know, and Credit Suisse, for all we know, could be exposed to risks that the market doesn’t know about, according to José-Luis Peydró, a professor of finance at Imperial College Business School.

    The silver lining: We didn’t emerge from 2008 without some guard rails. Large banks have much higher capital requirements to meet now than they did before the crisis, which should reduce the risk of contagion from any one failure.

    Credit Suisse is far from insolvent, but even if things do go from bad to worse, it’d be unlikely to take the whole ship down with it.

    Enjoying Nightcap? Sign up and you’ll get all of this, plus some other funny stuff we liked on the internet, in your inbox every night. (OK, most nights — we believe in a four-day work week around here.)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dow rallies more than 1,000 points in two days as fear begins to fade | CNN Business

    Dow rallies more than 1,000 points in two days as fear begins to fade | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Is the worst really over on Wall Street? It’s too soon to say. But stocks rose sharply again Tuesday morning following Monday’s big rally.

    The Dow surged more than 700 points, or 2.4% shortly after the opening bell. The Dow has soared nearly 1,500 points in the past two days. It is now back above the key 30,000 milestone and is about 19% off its record high, meaning that is no longer in a bear market.

    The S&P 500 and Nasdaq gained 2.7% and 3.1% respectively. But both of those indexes remain in bear territory, at more than 20% off their all-time highs.

    It appears that the market bears may be going into hibernation, at least temporarily. Not even the news of North Korea firing a missile over Japan was enough to stop the bulls from celebrating.

    The market’s mood has improved due to renewed hopes that banking giant Credit Suisse

    (CS)
    will be able to avoid a financial meltdown similar to Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers 14 years ago.

    There have been growing fears that Credit Suisse is in serious trouble. But the bank’s stock price has rebounded in the past two days and the cost to insure Credit Suisse’s bonds fell too. That’s a sign that investor anxiety about the bank’s future has subsided somewhat.

    Major European stock exchanges have rallied in the past few days as well as jittery investors relax a bit. One fund manager noted that there are more companies that look attractive lately given the large pullback in global markets so far this year.

    “There are opportunities within Europe. There are some companies we have admired from afar that are getting interesting,” said Louis Florentin-Lee, a manager with the Lazard International Quality Growth Portfolio.

    A smaller than expected interest rate hike by the The Reserve Bank of Australia also is lifting spirits on Wall Street. Central banks around the world are boosting rates to fight inflation. But economic and market uncertainty could lead the Federal Reserve and other banks to slow the pace of rate increases.

    The worry is that overly aggressive rate hikes could lead to a significant recession. CEOs surveyed by KPMG US are predicting a downturn in the next 12 months and they are worried that it won’t be mild or short.

    But bond investors are now starting to price in the possibility that the Fed will pull back on its rate hiking spree. The benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield, which briefly spiked to 4% and hit its highest level since 2008 last week, has since tumbled and is now back around 3.6%.

    Investors no longer seem as nervous about the future as they did just a week ago either. The VIX

    (VIX)
    , a key indicator of volatility on Wall Street, fell about 5% Tuesday. The CNN Business Fear & Greed Index, which looks at the VIX

    (VIX)
    and six other measures of market sentiment, moved out of Extreme Fear territory as well. But it remains at Fear levels.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why This Election Is So Weird

    Why This Election Is So Weird

    [ad_1]

    The two major factors shaping the 2022 midterm elections collided in tumultuous fashion on Tuesday morning.

    First came the government report that inflation last month had increased faster than economists had expected or President Joe Biden had hoped. The announcement triggered a sharp fall in the stock market, the worst day on Wall Street in two years.

    That same afternoon, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina introduced legislation that would impose a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

    The inflation report captured this year’s most powerful tailwind for Republicans: widespread dissatisfaction with Biden’s management of the economy. Graham’s announcement captured this year’s strongest Democratic tailwind: widespread unease about abortion rights.

    The shift in the campaign debate away from Biden’s management of the economy and toward the GOP’s priorities on abortion and other issues has been the principal factor improving Democratic prospects since earlier this summer. But the unexpectedly pessimistic inflation report—which showed soaring grocery and housing bills overshadowing a steady decline in gasoline prices—was a pointed reminder that the economy remains a formidable threat to Democrats in November.

    These two events also underscored how, to an extremely unusual degree, the parties are talking past each other. As the Democratic pollster Molly Murphy told me, 2022 is not an election year when most Americans “agree on what the top priorities [for the country] are” and debate “different solutions” from the two major parties.

    Instead, surveys show that Republican voters stress inflation, the overall condition of the economy, crime, and immigration. For Democratic voters, the top priorities are abortion rights, the threats to democracy created by former President Donald Trump and his movement, gun control, climate change, and health care.

    Few questions may shape the November results as much as whether the issues Democrats are stressing continue to motivate roughly as many voters as Republicans’ preferred issues. Gene Ulm, a Republican pollster, told me he believes that pocketbook strains will ultimately prove decisive for most voters, particularly those without a college degree. Those voters, he added, are basically saying, “‘I am worried about putting food on the table, and you are talking to me about all this other crap.’”

    Yet there is no question that Democratic candidates are performing far above the consistently bleak public assessments of the economy, and especially Biden’s management of it. In one sense, that’s not shocking: Over the past few decades, voters’ economic assessments have become less predictive of election results, in large part because those judgments are themselves so heavily shaped by partisanship. But even in light of that trend, the disconnect between voters’ views on Biden’s economic management and their willingness to support Democratic candidates for the House and Senate remains striking.

    Biden has positive trends in the economy to celebrate, particularly robust job growth. He’s been cutting ribbons at a steady procession of infrastructure projects and manufacturing-plant openings (like last week’s groundbreaking for an Intel semiconductor facility in Ohio) tied to the tax incentives and direct spending from the infrastructure, climate, and semiconductor bills that he’s signed. Those economic milestones—yesterday, for instance, the White House touted $85 billion in new private investments for electric-vehicle production since Biden took office—will likely be a political asset for him in 2024, especially in the pivotal states across the industrial Midwest. But those accomplishments won’t necessarily sway voters this November, and in any case, all of these favorable trends for now are being overshadowed in most households by the persistent pain of higher prices on consumer goods.

    Even before this week’s inflation report, voters gave Biden an extremely negative grade for his economic performance. In an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Institute poll released last week, just 34 percent of those surveyed said that his actions have helped the economy, while 57 percent said they have hurt it. Not surprisingly, that discontent was most intense among Republicans and also among white voters without a college degree (a stunning 76 percent of whom said Biden’s actions had hurt the economy.) But that belief was also shared by 63 percent of independents, 55 percent of Generation Z and Millennial voters, 47 percent of nonwhite voters, and even 16 percent of people who voted for him in 2020.

    However, the share in each of these groups that gave Biden an overall positive mark on his job performance was consistently five to nine percentage points higher than those who believed his actions had helped the economy. And the share in each group that said they intend to support House Democrats in the November election was higher still—enough to give Democrats a narrow lead on that crucial question. Independents, for example, were split evenly on which party they intend to support in November, even though they were negative on Biden’s economic performance by more than two to one.

    This stark pattern points to another consequential anomaly in the 2022 polling so far. One of the most powerful modern trends in congressional races is a correlation between voters’ attitudes toward the president and their willingness to vote for candidates from his party. Virtually all voters who “strongly disapprove” of a president have voted against his party’s candidates in recent House and Senate elections. In 2018, two-thirds of voters who even “somewhat disapproved” of Trump voted for Democratic House candidates, according to exit polls. In 2010, two-thirds of voters who “somewhat disapproved” of Barack Obama likewise voted for Republican candidates.

    By contrast, in the Marist survey, and another recent national poll by the Pew Research Center, Democrats led slightly among those who “somewhat disapproved” of Biden—a stunning result.

    Murphy told me this disconnect has been evident since the outset of Biden’s presidency: Even when his approval numbers were high during his first months, she said of her polling, that didn’t lift other Democratic candidates, so she’s not entirely surprised that his decline hasn’t tugged them down. But Murphy, like others in the party, believes that concerns about Republicans—centered on their abortion-restriction efforts, their nomination of extremist and election-denying candidates, and their unflagging defense of Trump—also explain why Democratic candidates are consistently running ahead of Biden’s approval rating.

    “It should have been pretty easy for [Republicans] to put these races away, given how concerned voters are about the economy and inflation,” Murphy told me. Now, she said, “I do think they are having to go back to the drawing board.”

    Graham’s abortion legislation is certain to benefit Democratic efforts to shift voter focus from what Biden has done to what Republicans might do if returned to power. In a press conference, Graham flatly declared, “If we take back the House and Senate, I’ll assure you we’ll have a vote on our bill.” Although many Republican senators and candidates quickly distanced themselves from his proposal, his pledge meant that every Democratic Senate candidate can plausibly argue that creating a GOP majority in the chamber will ensure a congressional vote on a national abortion ban.

    Dan Sena, the former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who now consults for many party House candidates, told me that the abortion fight’s biggest impact will be to inspire higher turnout from liberal-leaning and young voters. Abortion, he said, “has energized a group of people that we saw in 2018 and we saw in 2020 that traditionally don’t participate in midterm elections and are much more motivated by the cultural fight.”

    Yet few Democrats believe that the political threat from inflation and general unease about the economy is behind them in this election cycle. In focus groups, Ulm, the GOP pollster, told me, “We hear more gripes about groceries than anything.” Sena largely agrees: “Jobs and paychecks still matter, pal,” he said.

    One Democratic pollster, who asked not to be identified while discussing private campaign research, told me that inflation and crime—the principal issues Republicans are stressing on the campaign trail—remain tangible and immediate concerns in swing districts. In House district polling, the pollster said, the firm often asks voters whether they worry more that Democratic policies are fueling inflation and crime or that Republicans are too extreme on abortion and too soft on the January 6 insurrection. On balance, the pollster told me, most respondents in swing districts say they worry more about Democratic policies.

    Yes, the pollster said, the Supreme Court abortion decision, the revelations about Trump from the House January 6 committee hearings, and the Justice Department’s investigation into his stockpiling of classified documents have energized and awakened Democratic voters. But, the pollster added, it’s not as if everyone has decided that abortion and January 6 are more important than crime and inflation.

    Strategists and pollsters on both sides believe that these diverging agendas could intensify one of the most powerful trends in modern American politics: the class inversion in which Democrats are running stronger among white voters with college degrees and Republicans are gaining ground among white voters without them, as well as among blue-collar Latino voters.

    In white-collar America, inflation may be more of an inconvenience than an existential threat, which provides space for voters to prioritize their values on issues such as abortion or Trump’s threat to democracy. In blue-collar America, where inflation often presents more difficult daily choices and sacrifices, abortion and the fate of democracy may be less salient, even among those who agree with Democrats on those issues. In the Marist poll, twice as many white voters without a college degree picked inflation over abortion as their top concern in November, while slightly more college-educated white voters picked abortion than inflation.

    Even with inflation at its highest level in 40 years, Republicans appear unlikely to significantly cut into such key Democratic constituencies as college-educated white voters, young people, and residents of large metropolitan areas. And even such a seismic shock as the Supreme Court abortion decision may not significantly loosen the Republican hold on white women without a college education. Although there may be some movement around the edges (inflation, for instance, could help Republicans gain among Latino voters), the biggest story of 2022 may be how closely it follows the lines of geographic and demographic polarization that the 2016, 2018, and 2020 elections have engraved.

    As in those contests, a handful of competitive swing states (Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) will tip the precarious national balance of power between red and blue areas that now behave more like separate nations than different sections. The November elections seem likely to demonstrate again that the U.S. remains locked in a struggle between two coalitions that hold utterly antithetical visions of America’s future—yet remain almost equal in size.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • The increase in funding for the IRS is not going create an army of agents that will come after you

    The increase in funding for the IRS is not going create an army of agents that will come after you

    [ad_1]

    The Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden signed on Tuesday includes a $79 billion injection for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Many political figures and members of the media are reacting incredulously to this long-sought budget increase for the nation’s tax agency. In discussing this budget increase, Senator Chuck Grassley suggested in an interview on Fox News last week that the IRS “are they going to have a strike force that goes in with AK-15s already loaded, ready to shoot some small-business person in Iowa with these? Because I think they are going after middle class and small business people…” On August 11th, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade warned his viewers that “Joe Biden’s new army” of armed IRS agents could “hunt down and kill middle-class taxpayers that don’t pay enough.” We find these hyperbolic claims to be false. Although the IRS intends to hire more people, Treasury Department officials say not all new hires will work on enforcement and increased revenues won’t come from middle-income earners. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen directed IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig not to use the new funding to increase enforcement of taxpayers earning less than $400,000. The IRS is a bureau of the Treasury Department.

    Overall, IRS audits dropped by 44% between 2015 and 2019, according to a 2021 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report. Last year the Treasury Department had proposed a plan to hire roughly 87,000 IRS employees over the next decade if it was allocated enough money. The IRS will be releasing final numbers for its hiring plans in the coming months, according to a Treasury official. But those employees will not all be hired at the same time, they will not all be auditors and many will be replacing employees who are expected to quit or retire.

    As reported by AP

    The IRS currently has about 80,000 employees, including clerical workers, customer service representatives, enforcement officials, and others. The agency has lost roughly 50,000 employees over the past five years due to attrition, according to the IRS. More than half of IRS employees who work in enforcement are currently eligible for retirement, said Natasha Sarin, the Treasury Department’s counselor for tax policy and implementation.

    Budget cuts, mostly demanded by Republicans, have also diminished the ranks of enforcement staff, which fell roughly 30% since 2010 despite the fact that the filing population has increased. The IRS-related money in the Inflation Reduction Act is intended to boost efforts against high-end tax evasion, Sarin said.

    Albany Law School Professor Danshera Cords shares her insight on this budget increase to the IRS…

    The Inflation Reduction Act appropriated $79 billion over 10 years to the IRS to improve three areas: taxpayer service, enforcement, and operations. Since 2012, it has been widely reported on the degree to which budget appropriations have resulted in declining service levels, aging IT, and falling staffing levels. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Charles Rettig, an appointee of President Trump, has repeatedly sought budget increases to jump start the hiring and technology to more sophisticated audits of higher income individuals, businesses and crypto-assets. Given the aging infrastructure, computer systems that are out of date, and a filing backlog, the expenditures have long been needed.

    This appropriation is intended to help implement a plan to improve the IRS’s infrastructure in each of these areas. According to IRS data, in FY2012 the IRS had nearly 90,000 full-time employees. As a result of budget reductions, retirements, hiring freezes, the number of employees had dropped 12.9% to 78,661 in FY 2021.

    Restoring the IRS to previous staffing levels with new employees is more likely to help the average taxpayer than threaten them in any way. Moreover, hiring new enforcement staff including auditors, requires time and new personnel need training. Within its FY2021 budget, examination and collections personnel comprised more than five times the budget as investigations, consistent with prior years. New initiatives to combat fraud in higher income brackets require more sophisticated technology and better trained personnel.

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Relief from high gas prices is not likely to come from more drilling, as many politicians are demanding

    Relief from high gas prices is not likely to come from more drilling, as many politicians are demanding

    [ad_1]

    U.S. consumer prices were 9.1 percent higher in June than a year earlier, the biggest annual increase in four decades. Gasoline prices are one of the major factors, as the price of gas affects commuters, the delivery of food and other goods, as well as those aching to travel this summer. The good news is that the price of gas has fallen in recent weeks by about 40 cents per gallon, the longest decline since the collapse in energy demand in early 2020, when the pandemic kept many consumers at home. Nevertheless, gas is still averaging about $4.57 per gallon (as of July 15) according to AAA. That’s a pretty steep leap up from the average of $3.15 per gallon we were paying last year. 

    So of course, gas prices and domestic energy production have become a political tool that Republicans use to condemn the policies of the Biden administration. On July 14, Ohio Republican congressman Jim Jordan tweeted, “Inflation isn’t getting better until gas prices go down. And how do you get gas prices down? Drill DOMESTICALLY. Sadly, Joe Biden and the Democrats refuse to.” The tweet was shared by thousands.

    We rate this claim as mostly false due to its inaccuracy. Policies and decisions by the Biden administration have nothing to do with the current price of gasoline. The one-two punch of recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic followed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the reason for the high gas prices. The price of crude oil, which is a major factor in the price of domestic fuel, is controlled by the supply and demand of oil globally. According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), the main factors impacting gasoline prices are the cost of global crude oil (61 percent), refining costs (14 percent), distribution and marketing costs (11 percent) and federal and state taxes (14 percent). In other words, when the price of a barrel of crude oil rises in the global market, we see an eventual rise in the price of gas domestically. 

     As reported by Maria Azzurra Volpe in Newsweek back in May…

    There’s no specific body or policy that regulates the oil and gas industry in the U.S. but federal, state and local governments each regulate various aspects of oil and gas operations. Who regulates what mostly depends on land ownership and whether the territory is covered by federal regulations or state laws.

    In general, according to research by the American Geosciences Institute (AGI), most drilling and production is regulated by state laws, while federal regulations mostly safeguard water and air quality, worker safety, and exploration and production on Native American and federal lands.

    In addition, there isn’t much a sitting U.S. President can do to get more oil from U.S. producers. Brittany Cronin of NPR has written an excellent article explaining how difficult it would be for U.S. producers to drill for more oil.

    U.S. crude production currently stands at 11.6 million barrels per day, according to the latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s below March 2020 levels, when the country was producing 13 million barrels per day of crude oil.

    Farzin Mou, vice president of intelligence at Enverus, an energy analytics company, warns that boosting supply was not easy even before the coronavirus pandemic wreaked havoc on the supply chain.

    “The point from which you drill a rig to the point that you can turn it online, it takes about six to eight months typically,” she said.

    Now add in the difficulties that oil producers are facing to procure materials like sand and steel, and it becomes clearer that producers are unlikely to provide a quick fix to current gas prices.

    In an analysis published Washington Post in March, Glenn Kessler answers the question, “Can the U.S. truly change oil prices by encouraging more drilling and allowing pipelines?”

    Not really. The United States in 2020 was the biggest oil producer in the world and also the biggest consumer — but it is just one player in a global oil market. (“Oil” includes crude oil, all other petroleum liquids, and biofuels.) Much of what happens in the market is beyond the government’s control.

    In 2021, the United States slipped to third place in oil production, behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. That’s mainly because large shale companies committed to Wall Street that they would continue to limit production and return more cash to shareholders — “an effort to win back investors who fled the industry after years of poor returns,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Scott Sheffield, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources, told investors in February: “$100 oil, $150 oil, we’re not going to change our growth rate.”

    [ad_2]

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Cramer: JPMorgan’s ‘excellent’ earnings mean nothing to the market

    Cramer: JPMorgan’s ‘excellent’ earnings mean nothing to the market

    [ad_1]

    Share

    CNBC’s Jim Cramer and the ‘Squawk on the Street’ team break down JPMorgan Chase’s latest earnings report.

    03:35

    Wed, Oct 13 202110:13 AM EDT

    [ad_2]

    Source link